Letters to the editor: Views of local residents have been ignored

It was considered by Bayside Council's Traffic Committee in October last year but not made available to residents for comment before the meeting. The study has a major flaw in that it did not address the reason why traffic in Margate Street is so high.

The study came to some conclusions which are no news to residents, such as, the number of vehicles per day in Margate street is as high as 1,400. Heavy vehicles are 2 per cent higher than total traffic for a residential street.

Traffic speeds and volumes are higher than other surrounding local streets.

The Council Traffic Committee agreed with the study's proposal to construct speed humps which, although they would slow down traffic at these points, would not stop motorists using Margate Street.

Had the study considered the right-hand ban at Ramsgate and Rocky Point Roads when coming from east to west, it would have recognised why Margate Street bears such high volumes and speeds of traffic.

This is because it is the only direct link between Ramsgate Road and Rocky Point Road.

The official reason given to me by the Roads and Maritime Services in 2017 for prohibiting a right-hand turn was to "maintain safety and efficiency at the intersection". RMS also claimed it would be "cost-prohibitive to provide additional right-hand turn movements at this site" and "there are other traffic routes that motorists can use to access locations that are affected by these No Right Turn restrictions".

There are likely other routes, but none would be as convenient for motorists as Margate Street. Again the Traffic Study is flawed in that if it did investigate other routes, it did not name them nor suggest them as solutions to Margate Street's traffic problems. As for the other reasons, they don't make sense, especially since you can turn right when coming from the opposite direction where the intersection conditions are identical. Assuming there is a safety issue, why is it dangerous to turn right from one direction, and not the other? Surely it is more dangerous to have traffic diverted through a residential street rather than a major road intersection well regulated by traffic lights and speed cameras.

The Darrell Lea development gets its own dedicated right turn lane and, given the fact that the Traffic Study was completed before the development was finished and was not made available to residents before consideration by Bayside Council, it reinforces the disregard of what residents think.

They, after all, know better what their local conditions are, rather than some highly paid traffic consultants.

I have been trying for several years now to get local and State government representatives to listen, but as your previous correspondent said, the residents' views are not of importance to them.

These "peoples' representatives" need to wake up and do something to solve what is a serious problem and it is as simple as removing the prohibition of a right-hand turn and closing Margate Street to through traffic.

Surely this would be less or about the same cost as constructing speed humps.

Michael Peebles AM, Ramsgate

There is a "once-in-a-century" real estate sale about to take place on six hectares of river foreshore at Lugarno. (The St George Leader 26/2/20). It has been described as "perfect" for various uses including "development", "subdivision" and "retirement living".

All of these would involve locking up the land for exclusive and elitist private use, the clear-felling of the forest, and the extensive bulldozing and concreting over of a fragile Georges River foreshore.

This site is alternatively a unique opportunity for providing public access to the Georges River foreshore, in a part of Lugarno where this is lacking. It is a site of heritage significance, with a beautiful forest that both cools the local micro-climate and naturally filters stormwater before it enters the river. These ecosystem benefits should not be lost.

Georges River Council has the power, in this case, to impose planning controls and apply policies that can provide public benefit rather than just private developer profits.

Sharyn Cullis, Oatley

The most positive change introduced by the newly amalgamated Georges River Council in 2016 was that it dispensed with the security guard who had been present at Hurstville Council meetings. So when I walked into the February meeting last week I was surprised to see that the Council had hired not just one, but two guards when it should be reining in costs. ("Union calls on Georges River councillors to abandon staff review", February 25).

So what was the threat, exactly? It can't have been the quiet band of workers who had every right to listen to their union organiser who spoke in defence of their jobs. Surely it wasn't members of the genteel Save Carss Park Pool or Friends of Oatley community groups. Or was management worried that someone would steal some wine, prawns or freshly minted plaques from the councillors' suite? Council meetings are sometimes rowdy but never violent and having followed council affairs for ten years I'm certain that we don't need this additional cost.

Peter Mahoney. Oatley

After watching the Charity Shield it looks like despite the new coaching staff, other than the head coach, that it is going to be a long and painful season for the supporters.

In attack they have followed up from previous seasons.

Their strategy is to just continue with one man hit ups.

The ball carrier does not look for support and even if he does there is no support unlike the opposition who seem to get the ball to support easily .

In defence, initially a couple of steps forward and then slide, allowing the opposition to easily cross the advantage line.

Then they stand flat footed and start to backpedal which allows the opposition to carve them up.

The whole aim should be line speed to stop their opponents from crossing the advantage line.

If I and other supporters can see this why cant McGregor? John Fraser, Arden Ridge